Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Proof of Paul's hypocrisy

So, tonight I did some research. The fact that Ron Paul voted against giving Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal has been tossed around a lot as a possible indication of a racist attitude and hypocrisy. I decided to find out for myself. First, Paul's comments on the matter:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way.

It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money.

So, the medal is too expensive. I personally find it to be a ridiculous position to take, but whatever. As long as he votes against every medal...right?

Well that's what I set out to determine. Was he so set in his beliefs, that he voted against every medal Congress proposed?

The common example used is that Paul voted for Frank Sinatra's medal. However, I could find no proof of this. The medal passed with a 2/3 majority, and the individual votes weren't recorded. So he could've voted either way, there's no way to know.

I decided to randomly pick a medal given after the Rosa Parks medal and see how Paul voted on it. I ended up with the medal given to the Tuskegee Airman, passed Feb 28, 2006. Results? Ayes: 400. Nays: 0.

Well, there were 32 no-votes, so maybe Paul was just absent for the vote, but he would've voted against it, right?!

So, at the very least, this suggests Ron Paul didn't vote against the Rosa Parks medal for purely racist reasons. But, what it does prove is that Paul did have a reason to vote against the Parks medal, and it doesn't look like consistency in fiscal responsibility was the reason.

A medal for military servicemen, which is perfectly fine. No member of congress has any constitutional reason to object to any medal that is given for serving in the military. They are allowed to honor the military because it is the job of the federal government to maintain the military.

You know you support an honest candidate when the best dirt someone can dig up isn't dirt at all. Keep trying. I've objectively followed & scrutinized Paul's Congressional career for over 7 years and haven't been able to find any discrepancies.

The medal in question is meant as a military honor. Both Rosa Parks and Ronald Regan, though they may be great Americans, were not in the military. It is appropriate to spend money for a military honor for a military member, but it is not appropriate to spend the money for a civilian or politician/former president, though they may be deserving of an award.

There does seem to be a little difference, although I don't know if it changes constitutionality or not. I noticed in the news that this medal was to be made in their honor, awarded to them as a group, and then the medal given to the Smithsonian. What the airmen were to receive were bronze replicas. They also were being honored for their military activities, and although Ronald Reagan was in the military, that's not why Ronald AND Nancy Reagan were awarded their medal.

"Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold."

According to your logic, one is racist if one believes that the constitution is a good thing. I must assume that you disagree with racism because this is an issue for you. Therefore, by your own logic, you believe that the constitution is a bad thing. By logical extension, you believe that racism can only exist if people's rights are removed.

This is clear proof of Hortnon's desire for the subjugation of the human race. It is very clear that you are a NWO stooge.

Boy did he plan itright. Teela,big breasts heaving, got control after her powerful first orgasm and took thewhole thing in.dirty lesbian storiesfirst time beastiality storiesbig black cock rape storieserotic stories of young and beastialitylesbian nursing mothers have sex storiesBoy did he plan itright. Teela,big breasts heaving, got control after her powerful first orgasm and took thewhole thing in.